2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon

louis4 · November 2005

4 weeks ago, I traded my faithful (250K miles) 1996 Tahoe for a new 2006 model. I love everything about this new vehicle, except the disappointing towing experience as compared to my '96 model.

For years I have towed a trailer, up to 4,500 lbs. and never felt short on power with the '96 model.

The first two towing trips with the '06 model, and only 2,000 lbs produced disappointing gas mileage (the vehicle shifts down to 2nd gear for just a moderate incline or moderate head wind) but made me feel there is no towing muscle under the hood.

We put a converter back performance exhaust ($265 installed) in the vehicle and are planning to add the performance chip ($365) when it becomes available.

I realize I have gone from a 5.7 liter to a 5.3 liter engine but did not expect that much loss in towing performance.

Will the power chip even come close to providing a remedy?

Am I on the wrong track trying to spruce up the '06 Tahoe to make it have similar power than the '96 model?

Using the vehicle also for family, I am trying to avoid purchasing a truck. Is there any way around, or do I simply have to get a truck, maybe a duramax diesel?

Thank you for your insight and suggestions.

louis4 · November 2005

I am a car rookie. Don't understand GX?

Thanks for clarifying.

L

gmroy · November 2005

Yes Arlington Tx will be building the new 2007 Yukon and Tahoe. also Janesville wis. will also be building the same. Arlingtion startes Dec 5 2005. and Janesville will start Jan 9 2006. They have been building some 2007 modes for show and test drive for the gm big shots. Janesvilles has build about 200 modes so far.

dieselone · November 2005

I've noticed the same issues with my '00 Suburban 4x4 3.73 rear end with tow package. The 5.3 just doesn't produce enough torque at low rpm and the gear ratios are to tall for heavy towing (wish I had 4.10s).

The 5.7 had less hp, but it did have more torque. My boat weighs between 4500-5000lbs depending on fuel and gear. When hitting the hills I have go 80mph down so I can maintain any speed going back up. What is really sad is my previous tow vehicle was an 01 Nissan Pathfinder (3.5 v6) and it would tow my boat up hills better than my v8 powered Suburban. Even though both vehicles have similar power to weight ratios, the Pathfinder had more aggressive gearing along with an engine that developed its torque at a lower rpm.

lobsenza · November 2005

My guess is you got the wrong axle ratio. The standard ratio is used to improve fuel economy, not towing performance. The EPA rating are higher provided less than 33% of the vehicle are sold with the performance axle ratio. When I tested Suburbans in 2001 before my purchase, there was a big difference between the 3.73 and 4.10 axle ratios in performance. They have gone to a taller ratio since then which hurts performance even more. Fortunately, the 4.10 axle has been kept as a $50 option (it used to be free). You can change the gears to change the ratio, but it is MUCH more expensive to do after the fact. Try to find a vehicle with the other axle ratio and compare them.

ahightower · November 2005

My 2005 Yukon XL came with the standard 3.42. It feels plenty fast to me, but I've never driven the other. I don't do any heavy towing, but still the capacity is around 7500 lbs. The lower gears don't make a lot of difference on paper, either for towing or fuel economy, but I would like to drive one with a 4.10 and see how much quicker it feels. Regardless I would probably stick with the standard 3.42 since I am driving like a Grandpa lately to keep it over 18 mpg. It can still jump when I need it to.

Note that when they dropped the standard gear from 3.73 to 3.42, they also added about 10 hp and lb/ft, so that may help offset it.

Have they published this info for the next generation yet? I wonder how much of that fuel economy improvement is attributable to aerodynamics and engine efficiency versus even lower gearing and playing with the numbers to get a good-looking average for the press materials.

lobsenza · November 2005

One thing that will help a lot is the 6 speed automatic. Unfortunately, it is only available on the upper end models.

dieselone · November 2005

Acceleration with my Suburban is fine when not towing. It's when I add nearly 5000lbs of boat & trailer that I find power lacking. I couldn't imagine towing anything remotely in the neighborhood of 7200is lb tow rating.

If i buy another Suburban, I'll avoid the 5.3. If I have to go with a Denali to get the 6 or new 6.2L so be it. We tow our boat on lots of long trips. By the time we've added a weeks worth of luggage and gear anything more than a modest hill results in having my foot to the floor to maintain speed.

dieselone · November 2005

No doubt the 6 speed will do wonders. The gearing in current 4 speed is not geared well for towing. To much space between 2nd & 3rd.

5kidsinmycar · December 2005

I've been reading all the posts on seating in the yukon/tahoe - yukon xl/suburban. When advertising seating up to 9 (we will soon have 5 kids-family of 7- which makes for interesting automotive transportation needs), I wonder why GM has not provided a shoulder harness or headrest for the middle passenger in the third row seating. Despite my Suburban having a bench seat in the 2nd and 3rd rows, I can really only safely seat six. And if I try to put a child's seat in the middle somewhere, there is little room left on either side for such things as a booster seat in either the 2nd or 3rd row.

I'm currently contemplating trading my 01 for an 06 YXL so I can get captain's chairs in the second row thinking that ingress and egress to the 3rd row will be easier on the kids (and the seats) but it will be tough to put three kids in the third row, where two are in boosters and one is tall enough to need a head rest. The '06 model 3rd seat middle has only a lap belt and no head rest.

I have been scouring the pics of the '07 version to see what the 3rd row will look like...one pick of the tahoe shows a 50-50 split with 3 sets of shoulder harness seat belts but only two head rests. What are the genius' thinking? Unless families have quintuplets, the kids are usually different sizes and will need a variety of seating options, taking into account boosters/car seats/etc.

Many of the posts besmirch mini vans, but I have to say, my wife's 05 sienna has three headrests and three shoulder harnesses in the 3rd row. Great for haulin' the kids around town. Problem is, can't take a trip in it 'cause no room for luggage. Hence the Suburban. And I really don't like Ford.

Anybody have any info on the elusive 3rd row seat? Or do I have to submit to driving an airport limo?

I also have often wondered why GM has not placed a personal lamp in the headliner for each passenger, similar to an airplane. What a great improvement this would be, as each passenger could chose lighting or not; as it is now, either the entire cabin is lighted in my suburban or it is dark.

Hope some of you GM people read these message boards....some great ideas.

ahightower · December 2005

I hear you. They should also put LATCH anchors in every seating position, to compete with the minivans. I have a 2005 with the middle row buckets, like you said to make the third row more accessible. Only three kids so far, not a problem for me. Unless the 2007 is a HUGE improvement, I think the problem with three in the third row is lack of legroom, not just the middle seat head rest. You don't want three people that tall back there. The solution might be to skip the middle row buckets and have three in the middle, two in the back. Put one of the littlest in a car seat in the middle of the second row. Or if they are grown out of car seats, get one of the booster seats with a full back and head rest for that middle position.

jay_24 · December 2005

Agree. The 3rd row should have a shoulder belt and both second and third row middle seats should have a head rest. The lap belt shouldn't be used with any booster seats. Use it only with childseats. I think because its a 50/50 split they figure nobody will use that seating position except in a rare case because the split is uncomfy to sit on. If it was a 40/60 split the 60 side would be too heavy to remove easily.

putting a child seat in the third row will be a pain, since an adult probably needs to reach back there and buckle the kid in.

3 boosters/child seats do fit in the second row. I can see that the third row would be really tight if they fit at all.

for 3+ kids there aren't many good choices out there. How about a full sized van? We liked our mini-van but had to use the third row bench (98 plymouth grand voyager) and that kills storage. Most mini-vans only have 2 seats in the second row. Toyota is the exception. Get the 8 passanger and use 60% of the rear seat and fold the other 40%?? still doesn't leave much room.

--jay (three kids and a Tahoe)

ahightower · December 2005

I understand the new versions will have shoulder belts in all positions, if not head rests. So booster seats will be fine.

We have three in car seats (ages 3, 4, and 5 - small for their age). We put two in the very back, one in the middle. We got the 2nd row buckets so they could walk through to the back without having to flip and fold seats around. The oldest can buckle himself all up. The middle child is learning. We do have to step up onto the running board and reach back to help them buckle and unbuckle, but it is no more trouble than it was in the minivan we owned previously.

By the way, without going too far off topic, our last vehicle was a 2004 Nissan Quest. There was a LOT more room in the 2nd and 3rd row, and there was really plenty of storage space (for our needs). Not as long as the Suburban, but very deep and tall, due to the big well that the third row folds flat into. Ended up trading because we got a great deal on our 2005 Yukon XL, and have always wanted one. Also, while there is less room for passengers, there is much more room up front for me. I have always had to put up with my right knee leaning up against a center console, until now. It would be even better with the front bench, but that is not available with leather and the 2nd row buckets.

5kidsinmycar · December 2005

I did look on the web today concerning gm vans - the savana is the current large van with seating for 8 or 15. looking at the interior, the bench seating still has the same issues with center seat lap belt and no head rest.

I'm really not ready to succum to purchasing a van for my self just yet. Gotta try to figure a way to get all the seating in.

I may go with a bench version of the second row and try to fit as you suggest, with two seat and an open seat for our oldest and largest child. Besides, he can help fetch bottles and snacks.

pierceman · December 2005

Wouldn't it be interesting to see a new Suburban with sliding second row doors aka Minvans

OK< sorry, Its late and I've been drinking

Rich

ahightower · December 2005

Blasphemy!...

We are MUCH too cool for sliding doors here!

rspencer · December 2005

I love my Tahoe too...even with the dissappointing MPG's. It's pretty easy to remember back in time to model years that had all kinds of shortcomings and problems that are thankfully long gone. GM has done a great job of picking up on consumer complaints and consumer preferences - not always as fast as some would like...but they're getting after it.

Outside of their own long term survival...Mileage(fuel efficiency/cost)is probably thetoughest problem GM has ever faced. It's a tough nut to crack - but it can be done.

Having been in several GM plants and support facilities(engineering, assembly, manufacturing, management...) my expectations are high. It's a big org., it moves SLOW...but it can accomplish good things. The resources are there...$6.5 R&D budget last statement I saw. No reason why they can't git' er' done.

corvette · December 2005

I thought at least one of the center seats had a shoulder belt, but there is still the issue of head restraints. The Savana is designed to be either a cargo van or church or hotel bus or a conversion van, and without going the conversion van route, there are not that many creature comforts.

Other grumblings:

Can someone please explain the reasoning behind displacement on demand? I know how it's supposed to work, but a 2006 4WD Yukon without DOD has EPA ratings of 15/19, but a presumably lighter 2006 4WD Envoy XL *with* DOD has EPA ratings of 15/20. I would expect a larger difference. Am I wrong about the 2006 Yukon not having DOD?

* No standard side airbags. So much for GM's much-lauded "safety for everyone."
* Looks like they're still using that unpainted wart-looking thing as the OnStar/XM antenna.

I haven't been able to find a complete feature and option list, so I can only speculate that features like four auto up/down windows and laser-cut keys are not included.

abshop · December 2005

How long will we have to wait before we see nice rebates on the 07?

"I haven't been able to find a complete feature and option list, so I can only speculate that features like four auto up/down windows and laser-cut keys are not included"

link title

Select shop by model, then select chev-tahoe-go, then select 2007

06lly · December 2005

Just read where the EPA Highway mileage for 4WD Tahoe is 21 MPG!! That is basically amazing compared to the 17 MPG for Ford Expedition and Toyota Sequoia. Long live the pushrod engine.

lrtexasman · December 2005

I think people buy Tahoes because they are roomy, safe and versatile. So why doesnt the 3rd row seat fold flat like the competition. For example, my family of five travels with our friends and grandparents on a regular basis - 3rd row in. I tow my four wheeler and boat for recreational purposes - 3rd row out. I use the tahoe for duck and deer hunting (dog kennel in back) - 3rd row out.

As you can see the seats go in and out on a regular basis. They are heavy, it is very difficult for my wife to remove them when I am not around. So, I was really disappointed to see the 3rd row in the 07 does not fold into the floor. I am so dissapointed I will not buy the new body style. If there are no real safety or convienance upgrades to the vehicle why pay 35k for a new one.

My 5.7 tows with plenty of power. Rides even smoother while towing. Freeway gas mileage is 14 mpg while towing and 19 mpg with no load. Both satifactory numbers for the size.

My 2001 Z-71 got only 11 mpg while towing.

dieselone · December 2005

Just read where the EPA Highway mileage for 4WD Tahoe is 21 MPG!! That is basically amazing compared to the 17 MPG for Ford Expedition and Toyota Sequoia. Long live the pushrod engine.

Considering, I've never gotten over 17mpg hwy in my '00 Suburban with the 5.3. I'll fall off my chair in shock if real world mileage is anywhere near that. My fear is they probably are using some God awful final drive ratio of 3.42 or less to acheive those results.

As for the Expedition, it weighs about 400lbs more than a Tahoe and we'll have to see if the upgraded 5.3 can match Fords 5.4's 365 ft-lbs of torque at 3750 rpm.

I don't see what's so great about push rods. The 5.3 in my suburban lacks power at low rpm and sounds like I'm killing it at high rpm. No thanks.

06lly · December 2005

Well, the 6 or 7 years from your 2000 to the 2007 explains why the fuel economy has gotten so much better. Its called DEVELOPMENT.

What is good about the pushrod engine is that you can get more power and torque out of it for a given engine size. I am not talking about displacement, but rather the physical size of the engine. For example, the 5.3 liter GM engine is way smaller than the 5.4 DOHC Ford engine but performs similarly. Pushrods is how they get the Corvette to outperform all of its DOHC competition. 500 HP in a DOHC would not fit in the engine compartment.

Now on top of that, these new GM engines have Active Fuel Management (was DOD) which is very difficult to do in an OHC engine.

The results of all this development is 21 MPG. And since the EPA highway cycle is a mixture of stop and go and highway driving, I would expect true steady state 65 MPH driving to get you 23 MPG. Not bad for a large SUV.

I love this advancing technology.

nedzel · December 2005

I'll believe it when I see it.

dieselone · December 2005

I guarantee the only reason GM keeps pushrod designs around is due to lower development costs. Since GM can't seem to find it's own [non-permissible content removed] with both hands, I fail to believe they use pushrods strictly because they are better. If they were, all your exotics would be using them.

I've driven lots of different vehicles, and I've yet to like a pushrod engine over a comparable OHC design (vette excluded). In v8's the difference is less drastic. Still if you look at Nissan's 5.6L v8 it has a ton more torque at a lower rpm than GMs 5.3L and 6.0L v8s along with Dodge's Hemi. Since I tow with my SUV I don't care about HP and torque at high rpm. My current 5.3 has decent off idle torque, but it's lacking between 2000-3000rpm. When I tow up any grade I need to run 4000 plus rpm or go real slow(part of the problem is poor gearing) which gets real old.

Bottom line, I'm very interested in seeing the new SUVs. My Suburban has been giving me nothing but trouble and in only has 58k miles on it and I'm tired of the rattles and overall cheapness the General is known for. Maybe this has all changed with the incoming models.

As far as the fuel economy claims, I'm still extremely suspect. Particularly since I've read a few tests on an Impala SS with the 5.3 w/DOD and in each review none were able to get anywhere near EPA estimates.

blckthree · December 2005

I too, with a 5.3L DOD Pontiac Grand Prix have come nowhere close to the EPA estimates. In real world conditions, where you are driving 70-80 mph on the highway, DOD is active only on flat roads with no head wind. My last long highway trip, I had 21.5 for an average over the 1600 mile trip. Granted, at 80mph for most of that 1600, that's not bad. But no where near the EPA estimate of 27-28mpg.

I have noticed 23.5 mpg if you stay in the 65-70mph range. A recent 300 mile round trip on two lane state highways yielded that mpg. Factor in a few WOT passes of slower cars and you could possible get near 25mpg.

All that said, I dont see a Tahoe getting 21mpg, with all the weight it has to push. Maybe with the 6 speed transmission, but DOD and a 5.3L is not going to get you 21mpg, unless maybe you never exceed 60 mph.

Those thinking of a 2007 just because of mileage, you might want to wait and see what the results are when people have had a chance to drive them.

Mike

dieselone · December 2005

You make a good point. Speed kills fuel economy, particularly in a truck/suv. If I drove 60-65, I could easily get 18-19mpg with my Suburban. With the speed limit here being 70 and always windy, I generally set the cruise around 70, over that and mileage just plummets. I made a trip from Kansas City to Chicago with the crusie set at 80mph (needed to make good time), I ended up loosing more time at the gas station since I was barely getting 14mpg.

As far as EPA estimates, I'm not picking on GM. I've only had one vehicle out of several that routinely achieved the EPA estimates with my driving style and that was a 2000 VW Jetta turbo diesel.

blckthree · December 2005

Wind will kill the mileage. I have a 03 Yukon with the 5.3L and 3.73 rear gear. We took a trip last year at Christmas to visit the family. 150 mile trip each way. The DIC on the Yukon showed 25 mpg on the way down, we had a tail wind of about 25-20 mph. When you hit the brakes to kill the cruise as you came into the small towns along the way, you had to use the brakes, you just couldnt coast down the the in town speed limit. On the way home, we had the same wind, only now a head wind. When we had completed our 300 mile round trip, the DIC was back to 17.5 mpg. Wind has to be one of the biggest enemies of SUV's and gas mileage.

Mike

4rider · December 2005

The DOD was first came out on Cadillac on 84 or so if I remember correctly. It was a flop and went away quietly. With today's comuter technolgy, DOD should be working much better. However, I am also in doubt that the DOD will give you any significant fuel saving in daily commute and most urban drivings. For a long streach of open road, it would probably help.
Now, it would be really cool if GM could come up a DOD that has a manual overwrite. i.e why not let the driver decide between power and fuel economic from time to time?

ahightower · December 2005

Good idea to let the driver choose. Like on the new BMW M5 and M6, where you can choose between 400hp and 500hp.

My friend in high school had a 1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse. There was a button on the console that toggled between "power" and "economy". I am guessing that it was just the overdrive on/off.

jyoz1 · December 2005

I would like to also add, why does GM refuse to design the 3rd row seat to fold into the floor and out of the way? I am not nitpicking here, I see all the improvements. I REALLY hate having to constantly take the 3rd row seats in/out for various tasks. My wife can't do it by herself, and when out, i always run the risk of it getting dirty,ruined in the garage. I love the new design but WILL NOT buy one because of this. Such an easy thing to do,yet they refuse to do it. GM DESIGNERS/RICK WAGONER....Hello

4rider · December 2005

fold flat seat is defintely a good feature. However there is a minor down side of this is that the material of the seat back is no longer the leather or the mathing vinyl. Instead, most often the seat back uses carpeting material. It is not a big deal but it does look cheap for a pricy suv.

dieselone · December 2005

I don't think there is room for a fold flat 3rd row seat with a solid rear axle. Every SUV I can think of that has the flat fold seat (Armada, Explorer, Expedition etc) has an independent rear suspension to allow room for the fold down seat. I think the Dodge Durango has a fold flat rear seat along with a solid rear axle. I wonder how flat it folds and how they made room for a fold down seat?

I'm mixed on the fold flat seat. I think it's more critical in a tahoe, than a Suburban. Honestly, I've never taken the rear seat out of my Suburban and the main reason we bought a Suburban over most SUVs, was due to the extra room behind the 3rd row.

One thing to consider, is GM did rush these new trucks to market. I remember reading that a rear IRS was in the works but was scraped to save development time (thus money).

Ford will have a redesigned Expedition in '07, that will also have an extended model to compete with the Suburban. I really like the Expeditions packaging and I only bought the Suburban for two reasons. A little extra room behind the rear seat and I was able to find a Suburban I wanted for a lot less money.

ahightower · December 2005

Ditto on all points, Dieselone. I am looking forward to the extended Expedition. It will be a couple years 'til I am in the market again though.

dieselone · December 2005

I'm looking forward for the redesigned and extended Expedition as well.

My Suburban only has about 58k miles on it and if I can keep it from nickle and dimming me to death, I'd like to keep it two more years to see what shakes out in the market.

jay_24 · December 2005

I'm sure IRS is great for on road handling and ride. But have you ever noticed the effects on ground clearance? the Ford explorer and Expedition appear to have about 5 inches of clearance on the outside near the wheels.

Wouldn't this be a huge problem in deep sand/snow and on even a mild wheel rutted farm road?

Not all manufacturer's have that same IRS issue. Subarus have basically the same clearance all the way to the wheels, Hondas (Pilot and Ridgeline) have slight clearance issues near the wheels.

Just a thought from watching them down the road.

--jay

nedzel · December 2005

I agree with dieselone. A fold-flat rear seat is not compatible with an independent suspension. I think that decision was a mistake on GM's part.

nedzel · December 2005

The current Ranger Rovers have independent suspension all around and have excellent ground clearance. So I think manufacturers can design an independent suspension that works well offroad. Whether or not GM and Ford (Ford the brand, not the company -- I realize Land Rover is now owned by Ford) will do so is another matter...

4rider · December 2005

"But have you ever noticed the effects on ground clearance? the Ford explorer and Expedition appear to have about 5 inches of clearance on the outside near the wheels. "

Absolutely outragous in my book. A true SUV must have the ruggness which includes a decent grand clearance. It is rediculous to know that my sienna van has similar, if not more, ground clearance compared with Explores, Expeditions, Pilots/MDXes.

jay_24 · December 2005

With a price starting over $56k MSRP for the sport model I hope they did it right. Hummer (GM owned) also did it right. Look at the H1. But then again the price tag is high.

So can IRS be done right (with good ground clearance) and be cost effective?

--j

dieselone · December 2005

A Corvette probably spends as much time off road as the avg. Suburban (maybe more if the owner is under 30 LOL).

Since these vehicles are primarily used for on road use, I don't have a problem with Ford/Nissan using independant suspensions to improve on road ride and handling while sacrificing ground clearance.

A serious SUV is a Land Rover, Hummer, Wrangler etc. All the rest are just beefed up wagons.

Most people who do serious off roading, wouldn't be caught dead in an Expedition, unless it was used to tow their Wrangler to the sand dunes.

4rider · December 2005

I agree that majority of Suburban traffic is not offroad however, most Vetts, 911s are not been driven at 150 mph either. So why do people brag about the top speed on their sports car? How it will be used is not the issue here. The issue is what is the capability of it and what is it good for. I do hit the trail from time to time, so the ground clearance is absolutely important to me.

I used to consier Expediton side by side with a Tahoe/Surbran. But Expedition has long gone out of my list ever since there lowered GC IRS came out.

dieselone · December 2005

Well that's why there are choices. If you want more off road capability, an Explorer or Expedition wouldn't be a good choice.

I don't fault Ford for improving the Explorer and Expedition's on road performance. Yes, they may lose a customer her or there, but, for the most part, they have improved it to fit the needs of the average customer.

marsha7 · December 2005

an SUV MUST be rugged as 4rider said...there are obviously good choices among SUVs, which I see as a body style as opposed to truly a function designation...I consider the Xterra and Navigator to be SUVs, but I would assume that I would see an Xterra in the off-road mud sooner than the Navigator...

:shades:

tdoh · December 2005

The discussion about 3rd rows and headrests makes me feel even that much better about getting the longbus version instead of the shortbus; I have three small kids of my own--if I never had to lug around cargo, the shortbus would be more than suitable...but since I do lug stuff around (e.g., on trips), taking out the third row would solve the cargo space issue but then one of my kids (assuming that he/she grows out of needing a child/booster seat) would be forced to sit in a seat that doesn't have a headrest. With the longbus, all five of us (and one additional passenger, as well) are ensured a seat with a headrest...AND I'll still have plenty of room to stow our stuff in back.

4rider · December 2005

"The discussion about 3rd rows and headrests .."

This is a very good point. I can't understand why headrests never get the same kind of attention as other safty devices do, such as seat belts and air bags. A good supportive headrest is a cheap and yet extremely effective safty device to have. You dont need a medical degree to know what will happen if you have a neck injury.

The missing middle seat headrest, or having a small, non supportive headrest is beyond my imagination and I dont understand why this is not regualted by the government. Perhaps most people just dont have that kind of awareness.

sdron · December 2005

Hi everybody. Just checked out the new Yukon at the San Diego Auto Show and it is sweet. Black SLT with 20" wheels and gray leather. Had it spinning on a platform and man is it pretty. Was looking at the 06 Denali's, but not sure I need that after seeing the 07.
One of the GM? reps said you can order without the 3rd row seats which will be a plus for me if true. Don't need the extra seating and don't want to store if I take them out.

mjansen1 · January 2006

OK, after almost purchasing a LT Tahoe a few years ago, I'm back doing research with the debut of the 2007. Simply put, I want to carry 8 passengers and do not want a minivan. So far our Outback has done a great job but with a new child, it is getting a little small. I like getting decent gas mileage and will never tow anything. Therefore, I have narrowed it down to the Honda Pilot and now the 2007 Tahoe. Any comments?

tyresmoker · January 2006

Night and day..the Tahoe is a MUCH bigger vehicle (obviously)and will be considerably more expensive to buy (for the time being) own and operate than the Pilot.

I looked at an '07 Tahoe over the Holidays. It is pretty impressive.

dardson1 · January 2006

I owned an Expedition. (99 and and I know that was a while ago) Never felt it was underpowered as so many complain. I liked it except the milage was so dismal, I traded it for a Toyota minivan. I could never do better than 12 around town and 15 hwy in the Ford. My Toyota was suppose to get 19/24. Never did better than 16/20 in the 18 months I endured it. Finally traded into a Tahoe 5.3 2wd. That old push rod technology with all the beef the reviewers brag about consistently delivered 15ish around town and 19+ on the road if I drove the speed limit (or near 18 going 85). I don't know from beans about push rod vs anything else. Seat of the pants, if it works, why change it. Best I can tell, the tough Chevy engine seems to be what everyone else tries to equal. It's a little rough but it is ready to go. Now have an 06 2WD Z71 that is averaging mid 15's city. For the record, I drive conservatively. Probably could lower my MPG 20 percent if I drove it like a kid. love my Tahoe(s)

2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles